RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 19951. The Standardization Process
The Internet Architecture Board maintains this list of documents that
define standards for the Internet protocol suite. See RFC-1601 for
the charter of the IAB and RFC-1160 for an explanation of the role
and organization of the IAB and its subsidiary groups, the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). Each of these groups has a steering group called the IESG
and IRSG, respectively. The IETF develops these standards with the
goal of co-ordinating the evolution of the Internet protocols; this
co-ordination has become quite important as the Internet protocols
are increasingly in general commercial use. The definitive
description of the Internet standards process is found in RFC-1602.
The majority of Internet protocol development and standardization
activity takes place in the working groups of the IETF.
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through a
series of states or maturity levels (proposed standard, draft
standard, and standard) involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and
testing. When a protocol completes this process it is assigned a STD
number (see RFC-1311). At each step, the Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG) of the IETF must make a recommendation for
advancement of the protocol.
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
before a draft standard can be promoted to standard.
It is general practice that no proposed standard can be promoted to
draft standard without at least two independent implementations (and
the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft standard to
standard generally requires operational experience and demonstrated
interoperability of two or more implementations (and the
recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper decision
concerning a protocol a special review committee may be appointed
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with the
purpose of recommending an explicit action.
Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important step
since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual standardization
(it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement to
draft standard is a major step which warns the community that, unless
major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol is
likely to be advanced to standard in six months.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are otherwise
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum with
the designation "historic".
Because it is useful to document the results of early protocol
research and development work, some of the RFCs document protocols
which are still in an experimental condition. The protocols are
designated "experimental" in this memorandum. They appear in this
report as a convenience to the community and not as evidence of their
standardization.
Other protocols, such as those developed by other standards
organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may be
recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of such
protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of the
Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational" in
this memorandum.
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol development
and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of the
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work of
other individuals interested in Internet protocol development. The
the documentation of such experimental work in the RFC series is
encouraged, but none of this work is considered to be on the track
for standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to
advance the protocol to the proposed standard state.
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without the
approval of the IESG. For example, some vendor protocols have become
very important to the Internet community even though they have not
been recommended by the IESG. However, the IAB strongly recommends
that the standards process be used in the evolution of the protocol
suite to maximize interoperability (and to prevent incompatible
protocol requirements from arising). The use of the terms
"standard", "draft standard", and "proposed standard" are reserved in
any RFC or other publication of Internet protocols to only those
protocols which the IESG has approved.
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is also
assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document. The
possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
"Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the proposed
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5), the
status shown in Section 6 is the current status.
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this is
because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example,
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
gateways, routers, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user
hosts. The requirement level shown in this document is only a one
word label, which may not be sufficient to characterize the
implementation requirements for a protocol in all situations. For
some protocols, this document contains an additional status paragraph
(an applicability statement). In addition, more detailed status
information may be contained in separate requirements documents (see
Section 3).
2. The Request for Comments Documents
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the working
notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet research
and development community. A document in this series may be on
essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may be
anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard.
Notice:
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs specify
standards.
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC. Submissions
must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the contact
information at the end of this memo, and see RFC 1543).
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive technical
review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the RFC
Editor, as appropriate.
The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging from
informational documents of general interests to specifications of
standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is intended
to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or standard
protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with the
approval of the IESG. For documents describing experimental work,
the RFC Editor will notify the IESG before publication, allowing for
the possibility of review by the relevant IETF working group or IRTF
research group and provide those comments to the author. See Section5.1 for more detail.
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC is
never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never a
question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC.
However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may be
improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs. It
is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on a
particular protocol. This "Internet Official Protocol Standards"
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
memo is the reference for determining the correct RFC for the current
specification of each protocol.
The RFCs are available from the INTERNIC, and a number of other
sites. For more information about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4
and 7.5.
3. Other Reference Documents
There are three other reference documents of interest in checking the
current status of protocol specifications and standardization. These
are the Assigned Numbers, the Gateway Requirements, and the Host
Requirements. Note that these documents are revised and updated at
different times; in case of differences between these documents, the
most recent must prevail.
Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP,
Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.4.
3.1. Assigned Numbers
The "Assigned Numbers" document lists the assigned values of the
parameters used in the various protocols. For example, IP protocol
codes, TCP port numbers, Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and
Terminal Type names. Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as
RFC-1700.
3.2. Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways and
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers is RFC-1812.
3.3. Host Requirements
This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications that
apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for any
ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
3.4. The MIL-STD Documents
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC-793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to describe
exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the protocols
specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DISA and
to the IESG. It is strongly advised that the two sets of documents
be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 19954. Explanation of Terms
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first is
the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
"draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
"informational" or "historic". The second is the "requirement level"
or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
label. These status labels should be considered only as an
indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
should be consulted.
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
it is labeled with a current status.
At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new protocol
is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
the (experimental, limited use) cell.
S T A T U S
Req Rec Ele Lim Not
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | | | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | | XXX | |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a few
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms below
will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (or
both). It should be clear from the context of the particular
protocol which types of systems are intended.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 8]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 19954.1. Definitions of Protocol State
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a "maturity
level" or STATE of standardization: "standard", "draft standard",
"proposed standard", "experimental", or "historic".
4.1.1. Standard Protocol
The IESG has established this as an official standard protocol for
the Internet. These protocols are assigned STD numbers (see RFC-1311). These are separated into two groups: (1) IP protocol and
above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet; and (2)
network-specific protocols, generally specifications of how to do
IP on particular types of networks.
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol
The IESG is actively considering this protocol as a possible
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and comment
are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to the
IESG. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a Draft
Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol.
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IESG
for standardization in the future. Implementation and testing by
several groups is desirable. Revision of the protocol
specification is likely.
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol
A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless it
is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use of
the protocol with the developer of the protocol.
Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed as
part of an ongoing research project not related to an operational
service offering. While they may be proposed as a service
protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard,
draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of a
protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest that
the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended for
operational use.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 9]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
4.1.5. Informational Protocol
Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors,
or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IESG, may
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet community
as informational protocols.
4.1.6. Historic Protocol
These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards in
the Internet either because they have been superseded by later
developments or due to lack of interest.
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status
This document lists a "requirement level" or STATUS for each
protocol. The status is one of "required", "recommended",
"elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
4.2.1. Required Protocol
A system must implement the required protocols.
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol
A system should implement the recommended protocols.
4.2.3. Elective Protocol
A system may or may not implement an elective protocol. The
general notion is that if you are going to do something like this,
you must do exactly this. There may be several elective protocols
in a general area, for example, there are several electronic mail
protocols, and several routing protocols.
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may be
because of their experimental state, specialized nature, limited
functionality, or historic state.
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may be
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature, or
experimental or historic state.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 10]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
(3) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to see
the document again only after approval by the IESG.
(4) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised in
two weeks then do Discretion (5), else RFC Editor to resolve
the concerns or do Refer (3).
(5) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a review
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish or
not.
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make minor
changes for style, format, and presentation purposes.
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent for
forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering concerns
in response to notifications (4) to the RFC Editor. Documents from
Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the same
way as documents from "other".
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram
There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is called
the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state are
significant to the progression along the standards track, though the
status assignments may change as well.
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states,
those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states. A
protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state for
several months (minimum six months for proposed standard, minimum
four months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long term
state for many years.
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the recommendation
of the IESG; and may move from one state to another along the track
only on the recommendation of the IESG. That is, it takes action by
the IESG to either start a protocol on the track or to move it along.
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision is
made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or applicability
(elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have, although
a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it then
is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status. So
the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time the
STATUS decision may be revisited.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 12]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+ V
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+ V
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+ V
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2) can
only be by action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been
proposed standard (1) for at least six months.
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be by
action of the IESG and only after the protocol has been draft
standard (2) for at least four months.
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready for
standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be resubmitted
to enter the standards track after further work. There are other
paths into the experimental and historic states that do not involve
IESG action.
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus becomes
historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track is
in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events) and
becomes historic (state 5).
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 13]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1862 - Report of the IAB Workshop on Internet Information
Infrastructure, October 12-14, 1994
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1861 - Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 3 - Two-Way
Enhanced
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1860 - Variable Length Subnet Table For IPv4
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1859 - ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control over
TCP RFC1006 extension
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1858 - Security Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1857 - A Model for Common Operational Statistics
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1856 - The Opstat Client-Server Model for Statistics Retrieval
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1854 - SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 15]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1842 - ASCII Printable Characters-Based Chinese Character Encoding
for Internet Messages
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1841 - PPP Network Control Protocol for LAN Extension
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1840 - not yet issued.
1839 - not yet issued.
1838 - Use of the X.500 Directory to support mapping between X.400
and RFC 822 Addresses
An Experimental protocol.
1837 - Representing Tables and Subtrees in the X.500 Directory
An Experimental protocol.
1836 - Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the X.500
Directory Information Tree
An Experimental protocol.
1835 - Architecture of the WHOIS++ service
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1834 - Whois and Network Information Lookup Service, Whois++
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1833 - Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1832 - XDR: External Data Representation Standard
A Proposed Standard protocol.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 17]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1831 - RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1830 - SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large and
Binary MIME Messages
An Experimental protocol.
1829 - The ESP DES-CBC Transform
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1828 - IP Authentication using Keyed MD5
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1827 - IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1826 - IP Authentication Header
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1825 - Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol
A Proposed Standard protocol.
1824 - The Exponential Security System TESS: An Identity-Based
Cryptographic Protocol for Authenticated Key-Exchange
(E.I.S.S.-Report 1995/4)
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1823 - The LDAP Application Program Interface
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1822 - A Grant of Rights to Use a Specific IBM patent with
Photuris
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 18]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
1821 - Integration of Real-time Services in an IP-ATM Network
Architecture
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1820 - Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent Checklist
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1819 - Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2) Protocol
Specification - Version ST2+
An Experimental protocol.
1818 - Best Current Practices
This defines the Best Current Practices subseries and does
not specify any level of standard.
1817 - CIDR and Classful Routing
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1816 - U.S. Government Internet Domain Names
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
1815 - Character Sets ISO-10646 and ISO-10646-J-1
This is an information document and does not specify any
level of standard.
6.1.2. Other Changes:
The following are changes to protocols listed in the previous
edition.
1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with Restricted
Encoding
Moved to Historic.
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 19]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 1995
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Applicability Statements:
IGMP -- The Internet Architecture Board intends to move towards
general adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution
than broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has been
standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are in
the experimental stage and are not widely available. An Internet
host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP protocol
itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details. Even
without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an important
advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing. It
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts and
gateways at some future date.
SMI, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Architecture Board recommends that
all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At the current
time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-II (RFC-1213),
and at least the recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely implemented
and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and users
should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as a
routing protocol. The IETF is currently devpeloping several
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with better
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to track
these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it is
standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users.
TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used,
there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with the
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is formulating
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one interoperation
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support OSI
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-oriented
applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC-1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of the
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network protocols
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI applications
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 21]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 19956.10. Obsolete Protocols
Some of the protocols listed in this memo are described in RFCs that are
obsoleted by newer RFCs. "Obsolete" or "obsoleted" is not an official
state or status of protocols. This subsection is for information only.
While it may seem to be obviously wrong to have an obsoleted RFC in the
list of standards, there may be cases when an older standard is in the
process of being replaced. This process may take a year or two.
For example, the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC 1119] is in its
version 2 a full Standard, and in its version 3 is a Draft Standard [RFC
1305]. Once version 3 is a full Standard, version 2 will be made
Historic.
Many obsoleted protocols are of little interest and are dropped from
this memo altogether. Some obsoleted protocols have received enough
recognition that it seems appropriate to list them under their current
status and with the following reference to their current replacement.
RFC RFC Status Title *
==== ==== ========= =================================== =
1661 obsoletes 1548 Draft /Ele The Point to Point Protocol (PPP)
1305 obsoletes 1119 Std /Rec Network Time Protocol (Version 2)
1533 obsoletes 1497 Draft/Rec Bootstrap Protocol
1574 obsoletes 1139 Prop /Ele Echo for ISO-8473
1573 obsoletes 1229 Prop /Ele Extensions to the Generic-IF MIB
1559 obsoletes 1289 Prop /Ele DECNET MIB
1541 obsoletes 1531 Prop /Ele Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
1592 obsoletes 1228 Exper/Lim SNMP Distributed Program Interface
1528 obsoletes 1486 Exper/Lim An Experiment in Remote Printing
1320 obsoletes 1186 Info / MD4 Message Digest Algorithm
1057 obsoletes 1050 Hist /Not Remote Procedure Call Version 1
1421 obsoletes 1113 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Procedures
1422 obsoletes 1114 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Key Management
1423 obsoletes 1115 Hist /Not Mail Privacy: Algorithms
1267 obsoletes 1163 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol
1268 obsoletes 1164 Hist /Not Border Gateway Protocol
Thanks to Lynn Wheeler of Britton Lee for compiling the information in
this subsection.
[Note: an asterisk at the end of a line indicates a change from the
previous edition of this document.]
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 33]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 19957.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Contact
Contact:
Joyce K. Reynolds
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
IANA@ISI.EDU
The protocol standards are managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority.
Please refer to the document "Assigned Numbers" (RFC-1700) for
further information about the status of protocol documents. There
are two documents that summarize the requirements for host and
gateways in the Internet, "Host Requirements" (RFC-1122 and RFC-1123)
and "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" (RFC-1812).
How to obtain the most recent edition of this "Internet Official
Protocol Standards" memo:
The file "in-notes/std/std1.txt" may be copied via FTP from the
FTP.ISI.EDU computer using the FTP username "anonymous" and FTP
password "guest".
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 36]

RFC 1880 Internet Standards November 19957.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact
Contact:
Jon Postel
RFC Editor
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
1-310-822-1511
RFC-Editor@ISI.EDU
Documents may be submitted via electronic mail to the RFC Editor for
consideration for publication as RFC. If you are not familiar with
the format or style requirements please request the "Instructions for
RFC Authors". In general, the style of any recent RFC may be used as
a guide.
7.4. The Network Information Center and Requests for Comments Distribution Contact
RFC's may be obtained from DS.INTERNIC.NET via FTP, WAIS, and
electronic mail. Through FTP, RFC's are stored as rfc/rfcnnnn.txt
or rfc/rfcnnnn.ps where 'nnnn' is the RFC number. Login as
"anonymous" and provide your e-mail address as the password.
Through WAIS, you may use either your local WAIS client or telnet
to DS.INTERNIC.NET and login as "wais" (no password required) to
access a WAIS client. Help information and a tutorial for using
WAIS are available online. The WAIS database to search is "rfcs".
Directory and Database Services also provides a mail server
interface. Send a mail message to mailserv@ds.internic.net and
include any of the following commands in the message body:
document-by-name rfcnnnn where 'nnnn' is the RFC number
The text version is sent.
file /ftp/rfc/rfcnnnn.yyy where 'nnnn' is the RFC number.
and 'yyy' is 'txt' or 'ps'.
help to get information on how to use
the mailserver.
The InterNIC directory and database services collection of
resource listings, internet documents such as RFCs, FYIs, STDs,
and Internet Drafts, and publicly accessible databases are also
Internet Architecture Board Standards Track [Page 37]